UIC project on the site where they were going to build Detonty Close - Denser project with 3 story apartments and a few town houses.


http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... e0ced.html

^ Believe the article noted $5.5 million financing already in place for the first phase of what will be 24 units if recalling correctly of a two phase 36 unit project.

The highway blight was too much to overcome apparently. Guess they looked at Aventura and thought apts would do better. Hope this idea comes to be and they do well.

As it turned out, no one wanted to buy a new bungalow next to busy Interstate 44 in St. Louis’ Shaw neighborhood.

The area in 1958 and 1971

stlgasm wrote:What the heck is with that rendering? Is it a cropped page from the Compton & Dry map of 1875 or something? Looks like we're getting another faux historic building, yay!

Yep. And, of course, el-cheapo wood-frame construction with fiber-cement panels. Definitely not UIC's best work.

I like that they're finally getting something going there. I would think that building right on the highway would be a bit disadvantageous so I understand not building houses. I think they should plant some more trees along the sides of the highway as a noise and visual barrier.
Something like this but taller:

I have a feeling Detonty Close never got off the ground because the prices they were asking were pretty high. I think they were asking mid $200K for smaller units to over $300K ...On Detonty, next to the highway...I don't know, seemed like a stretch.

Plus the renderings they had didn't really make the buildings look all that attractive...

quincunx wrote:The area in 1958 and 1971

Highways are the worst in an urban setting.

Would this be one of UIC's bigger projects to date in terms of financing and scope? Coming into the project with $10 million of secured financing seems like favorable position to be in.

Highway noise is no longer an issue for the apartments? Odd

Their biggest issue was trying to sell 16 $230,000 houses that nobody was willing to pay more than $150-170k for. Not the highway.

dbInSouthCity wrote:Highway noise is no longer an issue for the apartments? Odd

Their biggest issue was trying to sell 16 $230,000 houses that nobody was willing to pay more than $150-170k for. Not the highway.

We looked at a house up there. Overpricing was a big issue. Highway noise was also a concern but not the biggest one.

Highway noise didn't seem to hinder sales of the McBride homes on the other side of 44, and being McBride homes, I can't imagine they have any kind of sound buffering features.

debaliviere wrote:Highway noise didn't seem to hinder sales of the McBride homes on the other side of 44, and being McBride homes, I can't imagine they have any kind of sound buffering features.

Those are, for the most part, a block removed from highway frontage. Portions of the DeTonty highway frontage look at a hill topped by 44, with very young trees as a sound buffer.

Highway noise didn't hinder leasing at this architectural masterpiece!

dbInSouthCity wrote:Highway noise is no longer an issue for the apartments? Odd

Their biggest issue was trying to sell 16 $230,000 houses that nobody was willing to pay more than $150-170k for. Not the highway.

It's a smaller issue. For me it is more of a visual thing than the noise, given that we live in a large city. Either way though, when looking for an apartment I am more willing to overlook something like the highway since it is probably a temporary situation. I don't recall seeing the size of the units but these appear to be priced quite a bit lower than the new construction in closer to SLU and the CWE.

I drive by there quite often and was thinking that it would be nice if they put a sidewalk and bike path on the side of DeTony. Right now that side is a grassy hill coming down from the highway that is scattered with sporadically placed trees and a high chain link fence with weeds growing through it. Cleaning that up will do a lot for the property values across the street i think.

Why are they building these as such long, stretched-out buildings? Those connected-entryways make it look like some kind of institutional housing. These would look much better as multiple, stand-alone buildings.

I sure hope this design gets tweaked.

I really don't care that much about the look of this. It will be up to the street. It will have a brick appearance. It's fine.

It fills multiple empty lots (that were an easy visual) and adds density. It's not going to look amazing, but it's going to look fine and serve it's purpose.

I'm not telling anyone NOT to care about how it looks. I wouldn't do that. But this isn't a battle I'm personally going to pick.

^No offense, but that's the kind of "It's good enough for St. Louis" attitude that I really hope we can get over.

framer wrote:^No offense, but that's the kind of "It's good enough for St. Louis" attitude that I really hope we can get over.

None taken. I actually FULLY agree.

But I think this project is good enough for anywhere. Honestly.

I think there is a difference between unexciting design and unacceptable design.

What Pace Properties wants do by IKEA is unacceptable. Something is NOT better than nothing.

At the same time, more exciting designs will begin to come as we continue to have less and less spaces to fill. Even the most vibrant cities are full of mediocre design housing from when that part of the city was "coming back."

My focus is on meeting the general standards of "urban" right now. I'll save my hopes for more exciting architecture first off for bigger projects, and second off as we get further along in our resurgence.

But like I said, that is just me. I'm not asking anyone else to downgrade their standards.

^Fair enough.

Moving forward!!!

http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... d5320.html